They have a woman standing in her underwear in the trailer, and you know that just screams, 'take me seriously as a character'. I hope there is a really good reason for it, and not just an excuse to get more flesh on screen (granted, had it been Chris Pine in a jockstrap I wouldn't be complaining).

He said that everyone, male or female, who is not Kirk and Spock is by nature of the large cast more of a supporting player in the film, and that we (general we) should always be conscious of expanding and improving roles for women. Nowhere did he say the film was sexist. He was agreeing with the interviewer's question in the broader sense and saying he hopes to have better and larger parts for women in the films in the future, while saying that any deficit in this or the previous ST film is because of the larger focus on Kirk and Spock, not because of anything against Saldana or Eve.

Also, he correctly pointed out that the Uhura of his ST films has been given a much more prominent and important role in terms of duties, dramatic significance, and screentime than the Uhura of the original series. Wasn't there a thread here not too long ago either complaining or praising (I'm not sure which) that Uhura has essentially bumped McCoy from the "Big Three" and taken his place? I'm not sure how accurate everyone else feels that is, but Saldana surely has as major a role as Urban and has replaced him in serving as the moral compass in situations between Kirk and Spock on some occasions.

Also, while Eve is indeed prominently featured in her underwear in the trailers, so was Kirk in the previous movie's trailers, and he is back in his underwear again in this film, albeit not in the trailers. There's partial nudity for everyone. I will grant that seeing her in her underwear and screaming in the trailer are not great strides for women in film, but that's only what they cut things down to in the trailer to grab your attention. In the film she's a scientist and plays a moderately important role in the plot, so it's more than just screaming and getting undressed.

He didn't actually use the word "sexist," but he pretty much said the film affirmed patriarchy. Not exactly a cardinal sin, considering almost all popular media does that. It's a society problem, not a JJ Abrams (or Steven Spielberg or David Fincher or Brian De Palma, et al) problem.

They have a woman standing in her underwear in the trailer, and you know that just screams, 'take me seriously as a character'. I hope there is a really good reason for it, and not just an excuse to get more flesh on screen (granted, had it been Chris Pine in a jockstrap I wouldn't be complaining).

Click to expand...

There is - trust me - and you'd scream too. Read the spoiler thread if you want to know why. If not, you'll see why in 2 short weeks.

He didn't actually use the word "sexist," but he pretty much said the film affirmed patriarchy. Not exactly a cardinal sin, considering almost all popular media does that. It's a society problem, not a JJ Abrams (or Steven Spielberg or David Fincher or Brian De Palma, et al) problem.

He said that everyone, male or female, who is not Kirk and Spock is by nature of the large cast more of a supporting player in the film, and that we (general we) should always be conscious of expanding and improving roles for women. Nowhere did he say the film was sexist. He was agreeing with the interviewer's question in the broader sense and saying he hopes to have better and larger parts for women in the films in the future, while saying that any deficit in this or the previous ST film is because of the larger focus on Kirk and Spock, not because of anything against Saldana or Eve.

Also, he correctly pointed out that the Uhura of his ST films has been given a much more prominent and important role in terms of duties, dramatic significance, and screentime than the Uhura of the original series. Wasn't there a thread here not too long ago either complaining or praising (I'm not sure which) that Uhura has essentially bumped McCoy from the "Big Three" and taken his place? I'm not sure how accurate everyone else feels that is, but Saldana surely has as major a role as Urban and has replaced him in serving as the moral compass in situations between Kirk and Spock on some occasions.

Also, while Eve is indeed prominently featured in her underwear in the trailers, so was Kirk in the previous movie's trailers, and he is back in his underwear again in this film, albeit not in the trailers. There's partial nudity for everyone. I will grant that seeing her in her underwear and screaming in the trailer are not great strides for women in film, but that's only what they cut things down to in the trailer to grab your attention. In the film she's a scientist and plays a moderately important role in the plot, so it's more than just screaming and getting undressed.

Click to expand...

Granted, she might be a well-rounded character in the film. But why would the studio choose to present her as a mere object for the pleasure of the audience? It's obvious that's what they've done here.

The way you present a semi-naked woman and the way you present a semi-naked man is usually very different. This trailer is a clear example of the 'male gaze'. I'm not saying that this is the worst thing in the world, but it is a bit sexist.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I really do see both sides of the issue, but I will point out that the thread directly under this one was about the premier in Berlin, Germany, complete with photos. Ms. Saldana is wearing a very short dress and very high heels. Ms. Eve is wearing a mostly-covering, but still slinky, red dress. Neither one looks like a slut, but the point is: take a look at the actress's photos, not just these actresses, but most of them, when they are dressing themselves and not being told what to wear for their role. You will find, more often than not, that they will choose to wear things that would be called objectionable and sexist if worn in the movies they are promoting. I guess it's not always a bad thing to try and deny human nature but you're still, well, denying human nature.

I have always thought that Star Trek had two kinds of women--those that were attractive love interests like Seven of Nine, Deanna Troi, and every alien Kirk encounters, and the brainy types like Janeway who can't play sex as easily as the others. Look at Nurse Chapel in the first series, or the Orion slave women in the original pilot, hell the main female lead in "The Cage." Star Trek has never, in Gene's vision, presented women in a good light. They are breathless, highly emotional vessels for men to conquer.

I found Uhura in 2009 to be head-and-shoulders above any other interpretation. While she rushes to the door every time Spock starts off the bridge, and is a love interest for both Spock and Kirk, she manages to be more highly qualified than any of the other main cast members. It was mixed together--she is stripping on camera while telling us that the Klingon armada was destroyed. She stands up to Spock, something Nurse Chapel never would've done, and gets herself put on the Enterprise. She confirms Kirk's report and then takes over for the communications officer because she can speak all three dialects of the Romulan language. She's actually more qualified, it's fleshed out, than even Kirk and Spock. She has a history.

While it is a fair point that Seven of Nine was in a cat suit and Carol strips down to her skivvies and that's what's sold to the audience, this version of Trek manages to treat women better than previous incarnations, by comparison. "Can you feel me Imzadi?" Hell, an actress got fired over bringing this to Gene's attention (Gates McFadden).

It's been more glaring than any other problem I have with Trek. The fact that JJ sees this, brings him up in my book.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I really do see both sides of the issue, but I will point out that the thread directly under this one was about the premier in Berlin, Germany, complete with photos. Ms. Saldana is wearing a very short dress and very high heels. Ms. Eve is wearing a mostly-covering, but still slinky, red dress. Neither one looks like a slut, but the point is: take a look at the actress's photos, not just these actresses, but most of them, when they are dressing themselves and not being told what to wear for their role. You will find, more often than not, that they will choose to wear things that would be called objectionable and sexist if worn in the movies they are promoting. I guess it's not always a bad thing to try and deny human nature but you're still, well, denying human nature.

Click to expand...

Being Sexually attracted is human nature. Men putting women on display for their amusement is not. That's a male-dominated society. At least when women drool, it's usually over a guy in a suit, dressed from head to toe. We don't see the clothes, gentlemen. We see what part of the body is showing and being accentuated. Men are not asked to do that. We like to be titillated. So here we go on this debate. Why does women fashion show more skin?